Therefore, it is true equality, as both Emma and these men are acting identical. She used Paul shamelessly to self-promote, and now she is getting used shamelessly.
I am not confused by the video though - troubled people tend to continue to do troubling things, until they get help. Of course, the video would be surprising if one initially thought her behavior ala Paul, texts etc. were normal. The hiding behind the art routine is falling apart. She needs help.
Thank goodness for those upstanding citizens who have uploaded the video to their upstanding totes safe-for-work websites.
So then I assume that you would also have to point your cannon at Ted Lawson and Jon Kessler and say they are harassing Paul and ruining his reputation as well.
You have GOT to be kidding.
It seems far more likely that the site can’t deal with all of the people wanting to view her sex tape.
Hey, it worked for Kim Kardashian…
I can’t help but compare this to the video made by Theo Van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Unfavorably, need I add.
As described, the work might be derived from Andrea Fraser’s performance piece, “Untitled” (2003).
“Untitled” is a an art piece where the artist had sex on camera with a collector, and the resulting video is the art. I read an interview with Fraser about “Untitled” and came way thinking I just don’t understand art and artists. I just don’t get it.
Many artists have incorporated their bodies in their works, especially performance artists. One of the most extreme was the artist Chris Burden, who had himself shot (that is, with a gun) for one work. He said his work arose, in part, from a traumatic accident he suffered at age 13. Burden died last month at the age of 69, from melanoma.
I have not seen the video so cannot comment on it but I also was confused by the “artist’s statement”-- was not sure what was being asked of me. I always thought that worthy works of art were open to interpretation and two people looking at the same piece could and should (?) get something entirely different from it. In reading some of the press these comments resonated with me :
I would like the freedom to view a piece of art and form my own impressions.
That’s an interesting point, @HarvestMoon1, and it highlights a difference between Fraser’s and Sulkowicz’s work. One of the points of Fraser’s work was that art consumers are indeed voyeurs. Sulkowicz’s, which is rooted in trauma (obviously real or perceived, because none of us were there), is more closely related to Burden’s work, perhaps.
I think her career as an artist is going to be pretty limited since she really just seems to have one thing to say. Her statements quoted above are very disturbing. I wish that when she becomes a mother, she has only boys and comes to understand how absolutely absurd her views on proving criminal activity are.
LOL, that would be justice wouldn’t it gettingschooled? Can you imagine those boys as older teens finding out what mama did when she was young and dumb?
@MidwestDad3, thanks for your comments about other artists and their work.
Interesting, she has now blurred the dates on the video so they can’t be read. (I have only seen the first 10 seconds, it was enough.)
I wonder if a lawyer advised her. The site was apparently hacked over the weekend but it appears she used the downtime to make this change, with no mention that the blurring had been done or why.
The original video with dates and all are plastered all over the internet in the porn sites.
^^Her parents have to be so darn proud of her.
Attention whores are attention whores.
I wonder if being a porn star was part of her plan all along?
More on the Paul Nungesser lawsuit against Columbia. New information, for me at least, is a description of Sulkowicz’s art work exhibited at Columbia that Nungesser’s parents called “highly disturbing and extremely graphic drawings of our son publicly on campus.”
I’m generally not in favor of censorship of art, but in this case I think Columbia should not have Sulkowicz’s to display this work as it clearly involves another student, at least by name if not by image.
That Sulkowicz graduated Magna Cum Laude is another poke in the eye. This is Columbia’s honors criteria:
“Selection is based not on GPA alone, but on the breadth, depth and high quality of academic achievement, departmental recommendations, and outstanding academic work beyond that which is required for the degree.”
A side note of interest: Roberta Kaplan, the attorney representing Columbia, “successfully argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of her client, Edith (Edie) Windsor, in United States v. Windsor. This resulted in a groundbreaking decision that invalidated a crucial section of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.” (From Wikipedia)
Long version
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/2015_0624_nungesser.pdf
Short version
http://jezebel.com/paul-nungessers-lawyers-accuse-emma-sulkowicz-of-anti-m-1713868544
The problem with the art display is not that it’s “pornographic” (that’s just ranting) but that in the accompanying NYT articles Nungesser was identified by name. Sulkowicz is allowed to believe she was raped and should be able to make her art, but not identify Nungesser by name or by likeness, because that is defamatory. Who decided to put the NYT articles up, and who approved that decision?
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Gregory Woods dismissed Paul Nungesser’s case against Columbia, it’s president Lee Bollinger and the visual arts professor who oversaw Sulkowicz’s project :
Woods also said the former student had not proven that the university deprived him of an education:
Nungesser’s attorneys have stated they will re-plead his case by filing an amended complaint.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/12/living/columbia-mattress-lawsuit-dismissed/index.html